Case 1301743/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Habib v Ark Healthcare — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301743/2023
- Decision date
- 29 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Habib
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Miss M Habib brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment against Ark Healthcare. It identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act as requiring two years' service for entitlement to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that she was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also recorded that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint, and the complaint as to redundancy payment was also struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.